Apple has quietly resurrected skeuomorphism, only now it’s dressed in futuristic language like “Liquid Glass.” At WWDC 2025, the company revealed this new design language—a glossy blend of translucent layers, reactive lighting, and depth effects that look impressive until you try to use them.
This moment marks a full-circle return to tactile, material-rich interfaces Apple once abandoned. The stitched leather is gone, replaced by molten acrylic textures that feel more like a sci-fi showroom.
From Flat Minimalism to Glowing Depth
More than a decade ago, Apple discarded skeuomorphism in favor of flat minimalism. Shadows, textures, and faux 3D surfaces were replaced by clean lines and pastel color palettes. Now, Liquid Glass reverses that trend with shimmering surfaces, refractions, and dynamic behaviors that evoke the spirit of Aqua reimagined for Vision Pro.
According to Apple, these layers aren’t merely decorative. They’re supposed to guide focus, enhance immersion, and respond to ambient cues. But underneath the marketing language, the principle is the same: simulate tactile reality to make software feel more real.
When Beauty Undermines Usability
Not everyone is celebrating. Designers and accessibility advocates have already flagged serious concerns. When layered over complex wallpapers or dynamic content, Liquid Glass can make text difficult to read and controls easy to miss.
Contrast weakens. Legibility suffers. What was intended to feel immersive often looks like a smudged showroom display. Early testers report disappearing buttons, blurred labels, and a sense that visual spectacle is replacing practical clarity.
Aesthetic Diversion While Siri Lags
It’s hard to ignore the timing. Apple’s AI strategy continues to trail competitors. While Google and Microsoft push forward with generative assistants, Siri remains stuck handling basic tasks inconsistently.
So when the intelligence isn’t ready, Apple does what it often does best: create a distraction. Liquid Glass shifts attention away from Siri’s shortcomings, presenting a fresh interface as proof of progress. But layering translucency over Safari tabs won’t fix fundamental limitations in AI capability.
Developers Face a New Challenge
Developers now find themselves forced to rework apps so they don’t dissolve into unreadable overlays. With Liquid Glass embedded across iPhones, iPads, Macs, and CarPlay, every detail—from light behavior to layering logic—requires reconsideration.
This isn’t a simple setting to toggle. It’s an architectural overhaul that could break established workflows and require extensive redesign. For many developers, the anxiety feels familiar—echoing the upheaval of iOS 7.
Nostalgia Wrapped in Cognitive Load
Liquid Glass tries to present itself as minimalist sophistication, but in reality, it piles on layers of visual complexity. It’s the UI equivalent of whispering loudly—pretending to be subtle while demanding attention.
Classic skeuomorphism was criticized for burdening users with heavy metaphors and unnecessary ornamentation. Liquid Glass trades leather for acrylic but keeps the same cognitive cost, asking users to interpret more than they should.
The Verdict on Liquid Glass
There’s no denying the appeal. Liquid Glass gives Apple’s ecosystem a unified, spatial, and polished look. It feels modern and cohesive in a way few design systems do.
But that polish comes with tradeoffs. It’s built to impress in presentations, not necessarily to improve daily usability. For users who value clarity, the glow may feel like a distraction rather than an upgrade.
The move is confident and polarizing—a statement that Apple still believes in the power of surfaces, even as AI and invisible interfaces take center stage elsewhere.
Final Thought
Liquid Glass may prove to be Apple’s most characteristic decision in years—ambitious, beautiful, and slightly overconfident. Whether it will age as a visionary leap or an unnecessary flourish depends on whether users accept more visual dazzle in exchange for less functional certainty.
This is skeuomorphism reborn, not as stitched leather, but as a shimmering sci-fi aesthetic. The real question isn’t whether it’s attractive. It’s whether it ever needed to exist.
Leave a Reply